Paris When It Sizzles

source: Paris When It Sizzles

I have yet to find a synopsis of this film that actually says what it's about, mostly because the films' synopses seem to be trying to desperately avoid that all-dangerously pretentious word: "metanarrative." "Paris When it Sizzles" is about a blocked-up writer (William Holden) who hires an assistant (Audrey Hepburn) to help him come up with a generic movie two days before it's due. The movie itself is concerned with getting Holden and Hepburn together... it not only makes that point clear, it even says it in the dialog... twice. They, in fact, are all-to-ready, saturating the screen with charisma and chemistry from the moment they both enter the story. Meanwhile, the movie goes on a tongue-in-cheek escapade through narrative conventions and winking asides to avant-garde cinema (especially New Wave, as, well, this came out in the time of New Wave), displaying a range of wit and resourcefulness that helps stretch the desire to see Holden and Hepburn kiss to, say, 130-odd pages? I think what makes this movie really fun is the self-conscious dialog in the movie-within-a-movie scenes, especially such lines as, "You're only 3rd Policeman, you aren't even supposed to talk!" and the constant (and yet never stale) repetition of the whole Phillipe-Maurice dichotomy. Most of what keeps the whole thing working and not devolving into too much self-consciousness (always a problem with metanarrative) is its pacing (not hectic, but definitely energetic) and its well-stated love of everything that its making fun of. This movie does seem to have fallen out of prominence. It's available, but not mentioned too often, and definitely not on the top of any lists. However, I hardly see a reason not to watch it, as it's witty, fun, romantic, and enjoyable. --PolarisDiB

Other than having Bill Holden and Audrey Hepburn in this film, the only good thing about it is the last 10-15 minutes when reality sets in. If I remember correctly, Holden lost Hepburn to "brother" Humphrey Bogart in the 1954 marvelous film "Sabrina." Was this supposed to be a consolation for Bill getting Audrey 10 years later? Audrey as a typist goes to work for screenwriter Holden. The latter comes up with one of the stupidest ideas for a movie entitled "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower." The stupidity becomes even worse when Holden and Hepburn act out the inane silliness associated with this nonsense. Cameos by Noel Coward and Tony Curtis, the latter constantly told that he is less than a supporting player here, can't even help this film. There is even a one scene walk-on by Marlene Dietrich.

I'll be quite honest. I gave this one ten minutes, which is more than I suggest you give it. Its got some really pretentious dialogue, and the two lead actors are not good in this - perhaps due to a lack of direction. Wiliam Holden was always bad, but here his patronising "this is a movie" voice really makes it impossible to swallow. We partly have George Axelrod for that. His play, and work on the screenplay for Seven Year Itch was delightful - but a very big style that apparently can really bomb when put into the hands of someone like William Holden. I wish i could get my two dollars back. 0/5.

OK, so it's not the best movie in the world, but I think William Holden was at his best in this movie. This was the first time I remember him in a role, and was he fabulous (and sexy! I dreamed of him for weeks after my first viewing -- and I'm 27)! Loved that they were putting themselves into the romance as they were writing it, and she kept changing his scenes, putting him in a roguish light -- loved him with the green light when he was a vampire. And Tony Curtis was perfect while mocking himself and his image. Everyone in the film looked like they were enjoying making it -- don't know if that's true, because Audrey and William had had a bad breakup years earlier, but their chemistry was undeniable. (Although I didn't believe she was as young as her character was supposed to be. And, frankly, it was annoying that she played at 20something when she was clearly older than that.) An entertaining movie I would love to own.

In 1964, Audrey Hepburn and William Holden were among the very top movie stars in the world. Because of this and their excellent track records, you would expect "Paris When It Sizzles" to be a very good if not a great film. Well, this would be a mistake, as even though the film featured these two likable and bankable stars, it's a terrible movie--a complete misfire and a waste of their talents as well as Tony Curtis' and Mel Ferrer's (Hepburn's husband at the time)--who appear in a few short cameos. I have no idea if the film lost money, though I am pretty sure it must have. It also, according to IMDb, was Audrey Hepburn's least favorite among her films. William Holden plays an alcoholic* playboy who occasionally takes time off from this busy schedule to write a film here or there. He's been under the gun to stop his partying and get to work when he hires a new secretary (Audrey Hepburn). Most of the rest of the picture consists of the pair talking out the plot to a particularly stupid film. And, as they talk, you see the pair acting out the film as if they are the stars. You also see that despite Holden's best efforts, they fall in love. "Paris When It Sizzles" sure has the look of a vanity project. The film is way too cute and self-aware. And, if he love the joke or are a die-hard Hepburn fan (and there are some who simply cannot accept that this actress EVER made a bad film), then you'll probably like the film. But the end results are not particularly convincing and the film that the pair talk about throughout the film is just plain stupid. Overall, the film comes off as boring inside joke. *This is a sad case of art imitating life, as Holden was rather notorious for his heavy drinking that appears to have helped put him in an early grave. This seems to a rather bad inside joke--referring to his drinking problems (which, according to IMDb, were severe enough to force him into rehab just before the actual filming was complete).

This hilarious and romantic movie is full of inside jokes. See if you can find the several places where Audrey Hepburn recites lines from her previous films. Also check for cameos by Mel Ferrer (Hepburn's husband at the time) and Marlene Dietrich. Besides all of the cool cameos and inside jokes, this movie is utterly funny in the way that it makes fun of itself. A must see

Paris When It Sizzles is acharming and delightful little comedy showcasing the absurdist talents of Audrey Hepburn and William Holden. The plot concerns a hardened screenwriter and his young protogee as they rush to meet a deadline on a film script. The plot is indeed thin,but what hangs from it is a scenery chewing delight!The film covers various scenarios of the script each involving the electric Hepburn and Holden in the leads. The humor seems to be a precourser to such fims as Airplane,History Of The World and Naked Gun. In addition to Hepburn and Holden,Noel Coward turns in a very funny cameo as the head of the studio. Witty and elegant as ever,I would have liked to have seen more of him in the film. Over all this film is an underrated delight!

I remember seeing the trailer for this 1964 film and thinking, like millions of other people, that this would be the natural follow-up to "Charade": same Audrey Hepburn coupled with an older eatablished male star, same Paris setting, same romantic music... It turned out that the audience watching this on the suburban main street cinema in St-Lambert, Quebec, were for the most part dumbfounded. Here was a film about a scriptwriter writing a script and altering the story as he went along in order to fulfill a mercenary obligation to create the most fulfilling, popcorn-selling entertainment possible, spoofing every movie convention in the process, out-Stanley-Donen-ing Donen's "Charade", which was itself an attempt to out-Hitchcock Hitchcock's films. It was brainy, satirical, cynical and the first obvious deconstruction of what makes movies tick. Being a remake of a French 1952 film by Julien Duvivier (scripted by cinema pioneer Henri Jeanson) called "La Fête à Henriette" made it even more derivative. Being scripted by George Axelrod (of "Manchurian Candidate" fame) made it challenging. Unfortunately, trying to salvage the film itself with the oldest movie cliché of them all - the redemptive power of love - made the happy ending definitely tongue-in-cheek and a tad less than sincere. But then there was so much to fill the viewer's time between the outrageous premise and the outrageous ending, it can be said that the thoughtful film-fan did get more than his money's worth. One of my favourite scenes is near the end, when the hero punches the heroine's boyfriend in public, which triggers a series of imitative violent acts in the impressionable public - including two Parisian kids starting a fight. What better illustration of the power of (American) movie violence to modify its audience's behaviour? So, which is it, silly entertainment or thoughtful thesis about the power of the narrative and of its many accepted conventions? Whatever you think of this film, it is at least partly responsible for the creation of the sixties pull-all-the stops, over-the top satirical-and-socially-conscious school of absurdist comedy which ran the gamut from "Laugh-In" and "The Monkees" on TV to manic but oh-so-hip-for-the-times movies like "Don't Make Waves", "Lord Love A Duck", "Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feeling so Sad", "Candy" and "The Magic Christian". P.S.: It would be very nice if "La Fête à Henriette" was made available on DVD for comparison purposes. But, like many great French films, it is only available for pillaging, referencing or as the basis for an American remake, but definitely not for viewing.

This is a film that only screenwriters and budding screenwriters will get. You have to have more than a passing interest in the process of writing a screenplay to enjoy the witty satire, wry comedy and not have a lot of the in jokes fly over your head. In that regard the film is brilliant and contains one of William Holden's best performances. Audrey Hepburn too is perfectly cast in the role of his secretary/ultimate partner and is a performance that stands right up there alongside her more celebrated roles in "Charade" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's". One of those films that seems too smart for a general audience. I have watched it over the years too with family and friends only to have them get left behind by the plot and start saying how stupid they thought the picture was. Maybe the best movie about the madness of screen writing ever made. Period.